- JD Barleycorn
- 11-07-2012, 01:04 PM
You've got the question, now answer the question as best you can.
- LordBeaverbrook
- 11-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Because Romney was not a great candidate in the context of today's Republican Party, but he was probably the best candidate that could have been fielded of those willing to run. I mean in the Republican Party of 1988 or 2000 or even 2008 he might have been a slam dunk because he could have touted his moderation and record more and earlier and been more consistent in his statements.
He also ran a pretty bad campaign. I mean Romney, as he governed in Massachusetts, could probably have pretty easily beaten Obama, but he couldn't run as that Romney so he had to shape shift into a "severe conservative" and disavow almost every position he had formerly taken in his political career or any public statement to mollify the Tea Partiers and other reactionaries in the Republican party. Then he had to tack back to being a moderate in the debates and in front of less strongly conservative audiences. He also didn't do the shape shifting very well in this day and age of video everywhere and the internet.
He was probably overly vague on far too much policy that matters to people so they couldn't trust what he really might do. It made it seem like he might be hiding a really reactionary agenda, which fired up the Dems to some extent. As far as foreign policy he either made faux pas overseas or acted like he just didn't care about foreign policy very much.
Lastly, I think he didn't take any strong stands on the craziest pronouncements of several Republican candidates. If he had disavowed some of the crazy rape and abortion statements made by Republican candidates he might have brought back a lot off the women's vote and been seen as a reasonable Republican which could have gone far in garnering their vote.
I think that in general the electorate won't forget nor put up with a candidate that constantly shifts his position to any circumstance and if Romney has any real convictions (I'm sure he does in his family and religious life and the overwhelming conviction in his business life seems to be profit possibly at any cost) as far as public policy goes. If he does the only one I could discern was that Romney should be President. My big question is whether or not he was "Lying for the Lord" as Mormon's are alleged to do (by other Mormons and ex-Mormons) or not. This is a well known tactic/policy so look it up - http://www.exmormon.org/lying.htm
To some extent I think the electorate realized how deep a hole Obama was handed when he took office and understood that we actually have come quite far from where we were in 2009 and early 2010 and they feel that better times are ahead now. Enough people remembered what it was like under Bush and saw the Republican obstructionism in the Senate the day after the inauguration and in the House in 2010 and didn't like that and didn't want to reward it. I think they credited Obama for the calm steady stewardship of the country and economy (and were reminded of that in how he handled Sandy) and were willing to stay the course rather than go back to many of the policies that Bush followed that may have gotten us into the Great Recession of 2007. That's just my take.
He also ran a pretty bad campaign. I mean Romney, as he governed in Massachusetts, could probably have pretty easily beaten Obama, but he couldn't run as that Romney so he had to shape shift into a "severe conservative" and disavow almost every position he had formerly taken in his political career or any public statement to mollify the Tea Partiers and other reactionaries in the Republican party. Then he had to tack back to being a moderate in the debates and in front of less strongly conservative audiences. He also didn't do the shape shifting very well in this day and age of video everywhere and the internet.
He was probably overly vague on far too much policy that matters to people so they couldn't trust what he really might do. It made it seem like he might be hiding a really reactionary agenda, which fired up the Dems to some extent. As far as foreign policy he either made faux pas overseas or acted like he just didn't care about foreign policy very much.
Lastly, I think he didn't take any strong stands on the craziest pronouncements of several Republican candidates. If he had disavowed some of the crazy rape and abortion statements made by Republican candidates he might have brought back a lot off the women's vote and been seen as a reasonable Republican which could have gone far in garnering their vote.
I think that in general the electorate won't forget nor put up with a candidate that constantly shifts his position to any circumstance and if Romney has any real convictions (I'm sure he does in his family and religious life and the overwhelming conviction in his business life seems to be profit possibly at any cost) as far as public policy goes. If he does the only one I could discern was that Romney should be President. My big question is whether or not he was "Lying for the Lord" as Mormon's are alleged to do (by other Mormons and ex-Mormons) or not. This is a well known tactic/policy so look it up - http://www.exmormon.org/lying.htm
To some extent I think the electorate realized how deep a hole Obama was handed when he took office and understood that we actually have come quite far from where we were in 2009 and early 2010 and they feel that better times are ahead now. Enough people remembered what it was like under Bush and saw the Republican obstructionism in the Senate the day after the inauguration and in the House in 2010 and didn't like that and didn't want to reward it. I think they credited Obama for the calm steady stewardship of the country and economy (and were reminded of that in how he handled Sandy) and were willing to stay the course rather than go back to many of the policies that Bush followed that may have gotten us into the Great Recession of 2007. That's just my take.
- CJ7
- 11-07-2012, 01:27 PM
Ive already offered my opinion, but one more time just for you JD
Obam won for two reasons ... the right ignored the issues that were more important to voters ie the economy, jobs etc
and Obamas campaign got the vote to the poll
thats why IMO
if you care to delve into the "why Romney lost" arena, just raise your lil hand Teach
Obam won for two reasons ... the right ignored the issues that were more important to voters ie the economy, jobs etc
and Obamas campaign got the vote to the poll
thats why IMO
if you care to delve into the "why Romney lost" arena, just raise your lil hand Teach
- LordBeaverbrook
- 11-07-2012, 01:33 PM
Obama won for two reasons ... the right ignored the issues that were more important to voters ie the economy, jobs etcWell said. Romney's campaign kept getting taken off their economic message by the crazy nutbags on the right shooting their mouths off and by circumstance (Romney stepping on his own dick in some cases). It is like the Republicans knew what they had to do, but just couldn't bring themselves not to be drawn into the nuttiest controversies. Romney's campaign just couldn't seem to easily get back on message by disavowing any of that crazyness (even though it would have seemed more Presidential) either.
and Obamas campaign got the vote to the poll
thats why IMO Originally Posted by CJ7
I'm not sure there was enough of the right wing vote to get to the polls now with the ongoing demographic shifts in the country.
- markroxny
- 11-07-2012, 01:34 PM
I posted in another thread:
He won because the key electorate does not want what the Republican or Libertarian platform is selling!!
Taking away abortion, planned parenthood, choice does not sell to the key electorate
Cutting things like PBS does not sell to the key electorate
Huge unnecessary military spending does not sell to the key electorate.
Tax cuts for the rich does not sell to the key electorate
You guys really don't get it, and that's exactly why Obama won.
He won because the key electorate does not want what the Republican or Libertarian platform is selling!!
Taking away abortion, planned parenthood, choice does not sell to the key electorate
Cutting things like PBS does not sell to the key electorate
Huge unnecessary military spending does not sell to the key electorate.
Tax cuts for the rich does not sell to the key electorate
You guys really don't get it, and that's exactly why Obama won.
- tttalinky
- 11-07-2012, 01:37 PM
The American voters were given two choices, both bad, and were forced to chose the lesser of two evils.
The Democrate Party was able to sell their dud to the American voters, the republicans were not able to sell their bag of shit to the American voters.
Gridlock is the "New" norm in Washington D.C. 50% of American voters like President Obama, 50% of American voters disapprove of President Obama.
My gut feeling is the next four years in America will look exactly like the last four years. With the exception of the national debt.....which will be north of 25 trillion!
The Democrate Party was able to sell their dud to the American voters, the republicans were not able to sell their bag of shit to the American voters.
Gridlock is the "New" norm in Washington D.C. 50% of American voters like President Obama, 50% of American voters disapprove of President Obama.
My gut feeling is the next four years in America will look exactly like the last four years. With the exception of the national debt.....which will be north of 25 trillion!
- I B Hankering
- 11-07-2012, 01:53 PM
Well said. Romney's campaign kept getting taken off their economic message by the crazy nutbags on the right shooting their mouths off and by circumstance (Romney stepping on his own dick in some cases). It is like the Republicans knew what they had to do, but just couldn't bring themselves not to be drawn into the nuttiest controversies. Romney's campaign just couldn't seem to easily get back on message by disavowing any of that crazyness (even though it would have seemed more Presidential) either.Notice that the MSM didn't ascribe to Odumbo everything some crazy nutbag on the left mouthed-off about. For instance, Carney blamed Benghazi-Gate on a video for weeks after everyone knew it was a lie, but the MSM all but ignored the lie told by the Odumbo administration. CBS even had film footage on file proving Odumbo was a liar:
I'm not sure there was enough of the right wing vote to get to the polls now with the ongoing demographic shifts in the country. Originally Posted by austxjr
KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
"So, the president and his surrogates refer to this Rose Garden speech as some sort of proof the president called what happened a terror attack, but literally, minutes later, Obama refuses to do so with CBS."
http://www.nationalreview.com/media-...reg-pollowitz#
- i'va biggen
- 11-07-2012, 02:04 PM
People are dumb with the lowest opinion of lawmakers most were voted back in...
- ChoomCzar
- 11-07-2012, 02:14 PM
more than half the people believe in free loading through redistribution of wealth because rich people got their money unfairly.....
you're either a plunderor, or plunderee....I choose plunderor.......
you're either a plunderor, or plunderee....I choose plunderor.......
- markroxny
- 11-07-2012, 02:18 PM
- i'va biggen
- 11-07-2012, 07:05 PM
Actually Obama won because the right had nothing better to offer...
- tttalinky
- 11-07-2012, 07:18 PM
- skirtchaser79411
- 11-07-2012, 07:23 PM
he lost because he could win last time what made him think this time would be different the GOP is out of touch with real people
- IIFFOFRDB
- 11-07-2012, 07:26 PM
You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime you get what you need...or not...fuckers
- i'va biggen
- 11-07-2012, 07:40 PM